Velocize’s AI jury is a governed review role. A case retains the question, invocation reason, relevant evidence, unresolved assumptions and authority basis. The jury can request evidence, recommend a course, escalate to a human or decide within an explicitly permitted class. Its decision effect is visible in the workflow.
Invoke review from the role or workflow
An AI actor that cannot safely proceed can escalate through the jury path permitted by its profile. A workflow stage can require review, and a human in role can explicitly request an assessment. Each entry preserves who asked, why and which matter is in scope.
The jury inspects the relevant evidence and contradictions before disposition. It does not acquire access to the whole organization merely because the question is difficult. Missing evidence can hold the case instead of producing an unsupported approval.
Distinguish advice, approval and escalation
The effective profile states whether a disposition is advisory, pending human approval or final within a bounded authority. Important matters retain the required human continuation. A recommendation cannot silently become a committed release or a policy amendment.
The case records the resulting hold or transition, follow-up owner and next required action. Additional evidence and reopened review retain continuity with the original concern, making the reasoning and subsequent correction reviewable.
Measure useful review rather than model agreement
Jury work can be measured by outcome, evidence sufficiency, escalation, human correction and retained value. Different models can serve preparation and review roles under separate assignments. The jury remains a workflow authority, not an assumption that several models voting together guarantees correctness.
Review depth and provider choice follow the matter’s risk and sensitivity. A cost objective can guide an eligible choice but cannot remove a mandatory approval or send restricted evidence to an ineligible provider.
Application scenario and operating value
A supplier return contains a passing test summary, but the attached configuration reference differs from the delivery baseline. The release reviewer opens a jury case about applicability, linking the package, requirement and available evidence. The concern is specific: whether that result supports this delivery, not whether the supplier or entire product is trustworthy.
A useful jury case ends with a supported disposition and an identifiable next actor. It may resolve within scope, require more evidence or escalate to a human. These outcomes are more informative than recording only that the AI completed a review.
- Identify the disputed claim.
- Bound the evidence corpus.
- Preserve missing and contradictory information.